In amongst the truly flabbergasting stupidity that is a Greg Sheridan column, (the one Mercurius mentioned earlier) there is one vaguely interesting observation: Obama’s allegedly left-wing advisers mean that Obama will be bad for Australia, because they have
…led Obama into protectionism, he campaigns against Clinton because her husband passed the North American Free Trade Agreement.
As the transcripts of the recent debate, the differences between the positions of Obama and Clinton on NAFTA – as on most other issues – miniscule, and likely to be swept away by the realities of dealing with Congress, Canada, and Mexico. Furthermore, both are considerably more nuanced than Sheridan implies. Essentially, Obama and Clinton both seek to renegotiate NAFTA to include “labor and environmental standards” in the agreement. As Obama put it:
SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.
But then, he goes on to say:
And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all. What I said was that NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States because I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world, and we can compete with anybody. And we can’t shy away from globalization. We can’t draw a moat around us. But what I did say, in that same quote, if you look at it, was that the problem is we’ve been negotiating just looking at corporate profits and what’s good for multinationals, and we haven’t been looking at what’s good for communities here in Ohio, in my home state of Illinois, and across the country.
And if you look beyond the minutiae of American primary politics to the perhaps more reliable guide of whom he’s employing, his economic advisers apparently include “a growing group of young academics, all of whom have impeccable neoclassical credentials.” Economists, for better or worse, tend to nearly universally support free trade.
Personally, I find it doubtful that Obama, as President, would be significantly more protectionist than the incumbent – who’s certainly not above doling out enormous amounts of money to (mostly large and wealthy, rather than struggling) American farmers. Globally, of course, we’d likely see substantial shifts on MIddle East policy (the primary thrust of Sheridan’s article, in which he argues that Obama’s reluctance to go to war makes it more likely…), and climate change. But on trade, and particularly as far as Australia goes, does anybody think that American foreign policy would change much at all? Particularly given that we, and south-east Asia, are of approximately zero political consequence in Washington except when our agricultural exports compete with the aforementioned American farmers?
well, all that kinda assumes the US actually dropped protectionism at some point.
Which I must have missed.
It was all “NAFTA: YOU hafta” in the end.
Greg Sheridan is plain wrong. He omits to mention that Obama has said he reserves the right to re-invade Iraq if al-Qaeda make a resurgence. Obama has also continually voted for the Iraq war (by voting to fund it).
As Reason magazine notes, there will be no change in American foreign policy – regardless of which of the leading contenders wins the Whitehouse in 2008.
I think two of the potentially most significant ramifactions for Australia were Obama to become President would be:
(a) the reasonable chance of a reduction in the escalating antagonism and hostility towards the USA from many other countries and cultures – which would have flow on benefits for other western countries, particularly Australia who is now seen as being so closely tied to the USA
(b) the benefit to Australia of having a US President who has lived in Indonesia, and has at least some genuine personal understanding of the place rather than just perceive it through a narrow prism of a diplomatic jigsaw piece in regional and global geo-politics. (it also makes Greg Sheridan’s assertion that the Obama camp “has no interest in Asia and can barely find it on a map” especially ludicrous – as if the US neo-cons ever had a care or a clue about Asia anyway except through their delusional construct of the ‘war on terror’)
And in regards to Pablo E’s comment at #2:
Obama clearly opposed the war. Voting to resource the troops once they were in there and the regime was overthrown is a very different thing. It is not accurate to equate the occupation and lleged ‘reconstruction’ with the initial invasion – which isn’t to say I agree with all his decisions or views on these matters, but debate should at least occur from an accurate foundation.
We under the less than great JWH sold out our sugar, entertainment, pharaceutical and God knows what other industries. Oh, I forgot. We were the 52nd State back then.
Paul, what was the fifty-first State?
The UK usually claims that title, GregM. I think Canada is a dependent territory, iirc
That’s me, btw ^
Alaska or Hawaii, wasn’t it? Or have I got my count wrong? I’m used to dealing with a US with only 13 states.
Off topic of economic policies, but on foreign affairs: Barak has as an adviser Samantha Power, author of “Problem from Hell”. I’d say she’s not a leftie, but a liberal. In her book she argues that the US should have used the ‘human rights prism’ to view some recent history. For example Cambodia/Kampuchea from April 1975 onwards…. didn’t the US go a little soft on Pol Pot after his overthrow by Viet Nam? Why??
An article on Samantha Power http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/18/samantha_power/
@8 I see you managed to get your time travel device working again. I know it’s a little out of your way, but next time you’re in the 1700s can you drop by Griqualand West and pick me up some trinkets?
Further to Andrew Bartlett’s points, I’d add that other significant areas that an Obama presidency would have a positive impact on Australia would be:
Solid support, in fact a strong pressure to increase our 2050 GHG reduction target to 80% and a willing powerful USA to work with to bring China and India into the fold on global climate change strategies.
A much greater focus on foreign aid aimed at increasing development and meeting Millenium poverty goals, rather than funneling it all off into military “aid”, which will greatly bolster Australia’s approach here and be a welcome return to the fold of the USA to support critical issues such as addressing AIDS, birth control and family planning education in developing nations etc. There should be a net global positive in terms of a genuine opportunity for the EU, USA and Australia to work together rather than be at odds on approached to assisting developing nations.
Obama’s strong commitment to nuclear non proliferation including a concrete proposal to destock the USA of nuclear weapons aloing with Russia. This strongly supports Australia’s long-standing leadership on nuclear disarmament.
A much stronger commitment to providing a constructive regional US presence in Asia, including explicit recognition of the role Australia has and can continue to play in the region.
Added bonus: won’t try and drag us into an assinine war with Iran.
At the risk of being labelled a blog whore, I am going to post my reaction to Sheridan’s column for the third time in as many days at LP.
Surely Sheridan’s explicit threat of a military attack on Iran eclipses any talk of FTA’s?
It would be nice to laugh at fools like Albrechtsen and Sheridan as they follow their heroes Howard and Bush into oblivion, but the rightwing global freaks that they represent are clearly not finished yet. I loved Keating’s piece, but… Bush and Cheney are still in the Oval Office for another 10 months!
Andrew,
Obama clearly opposed the war in speeches only. He wasn’t around as a Senator when the rest of Congress was given the responsibility of voting on whether to authorise the President to go to war. So we can’t know how he would have voted.
And when he had the opportunity to vote, he did not — like Republican Congressman Ron Paul for instance — steadfastly refuse to finance an unjust and unnecessary war — he lined up with the rest of the politically suave Democrats and voted for the funds. That, coupled with his admission that he would re-invade Iraq, does not amount to principled opposition to the war. It amounts to nuanced pandering that is likely to mean not much change in overall foreign policy once assuming office (and having to deal with all the lobby groups).
The significance of voting for the funds is often downplayed. But not voting for combat operations funds means you are forcing the President to consider withdrawing troops to safety (because he has no money). But when you vote for the funds you give him an opportunity to keep the occupation going indefinitely.
I won’t go too off-topic Pablo, but opposing the war in speeches is still significant. Plenty of politicians didn’t even do that. I am not saying he is spot-on, just that he clearly did oppose the initial invasion. I also opposed the war but once the invasion had occurred, but for a while held the view that there was a case for staying to help fix up the mess that we had created (a case that has long since been justifiable in my view, but my point is more that they are separate issues rather than arguing what is the right position on each issue).
As Myriad’s extra suggestions show, there are many potential pluses for Australia from an Obama Presidency (and from a Clinton Presidency too, although not necessarily as many in my view) – although most of those are of general benefit to the planet. I was trying to think of some that might be more specific to Australia and our region.
Even Obama’s apparent support for notions of Indigenous sovereignty might have some flow-on benefits for Australia.
All guess work of course – one can never be sure until someone is in a job precisely what they’ll do with it. He may turn out to be just another fraud with a misleading facade. But one can only go on people’s past actions experiences and words, and in Obama’s case that gives mild cause for some hope, without in any way suggesting utopia is about to appear before our eyes.
But even if it is nothing other than not dragging us into an asinine war with Iran, it would be still be some cause to celebrate the change. As Ganghi’s point indicates, while its easy to laugh at Greg Sheridan’s nonsense, this bizarre worldview is still at play in the Oval Office for a little while yet.
Whoever is the next president of the US, thier foriegn policy options will be limited. The decling dollar is putting pressure on the salaries of their tropps in Germany and Japan, the costs in Iraq continue unabated (up to $US200 billion this year – about 1/5 of Australia’s entire GDP!), and the sleeper is the increasing pension and medicaid costs for the retitirng Baby Boomers over the next ten years or so. The actual cost of the Iraq war is likely to be up to $US3 Trillion http://www.almendron.com/tribuna/?p=18902.
The US trade deficit – while improved by the lower US dollar – is still around $800 billion per year, but this is largely propped up by the use of the $US as a reserve currency. If the Saudis and other Arab states de-link their currencies with the $US (which is likely to happen later this year) then the $US will plummet – sending inflation in th US to all time highs.
In this scenario, whoever is US president will be forced by economic necessity to (a) bring the troops home, (b) increase taxes, (c) spend less on the military, and (d) stop throwing their ample weight around so much. Obama, Clinton or McCain – won’t matter much.
American presidents are renowned for not delivering on election promises. Watch this video for instance, where George Bush Jr. (campaigning in 2000) promises a “humble” foreign policy that involves “no nation building”. That was in response to Bill Clinton’s interventions abroad, which the Republicans opposed at the time. But when Bush gained office in 2001, his foreign policy was the exact opposite of what he promised.
I hope Obama turns out to be different, but only time will tell…
Yes, well Lefty E, we all realise the deep love you have for the quite pathetic Ralph Nader. You know, the bloke who delivered us George Bush 2. FFS, you’re beyond hopeless.
Could I refer you to this article, which answers Robert’s question, rebuts Sheridan and promises much that may well not be delivered; as well as this dismantling of Sheridan’s latest excrescence.
Trade would be tougher for commodities, but people who work the niches should do OK.
Thanks for that cretinous and illogical interjection, CK. I dont recall even mentioning Nader.
Back under your rock – its nearly daytime!
Along lines outlined by Kevin Brady above, the US will be compelled to rejig their foreign/military policy.
There will be a moment of bi-partisan acceptance in the US of that need for fiscal and financial realism. But that will end when it is perceived that radical Islamism makes considerable gains around the world, especially in Pakistan and Iraq.
This will be the signal for bitter outbreak of the culture wars in the US, which will inevitably make Obama’s race and cultural heritage a central topic of conversation.
Rhetorical poison like this slops out of the US with alarming ease. It may have consequences in Australia where right wing hate groups and populist nationalists will gain energy from the US debate. (This is what happened in Australia during the McCarthyist period in the US. It was the first time that Australians paid any attention to US domestic politics. It happened again in the 1960s when activists emulated MLK’s Freedom Rides in Darkest NSW,)
Thus I expect the Obama ascendancy to provoke racism and populist nationalism in Australia.
Great article by by Zbigniew Brzezinski: “How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19437.htm
I think that person is Obama. Clinton and McCain IMHO represent status quo on the “GWOT” and subject to all the “beltway” influences of the military industrial complex, the religious loonies (McCain of late kissing a lot of ass there), and the Israeli lobby.
The US needs leadership in foreign policy rather than pandering to neo-con fear mongers for domestic political gain, something that slimeballs like Carl Rove was so spectacularly successful at with the Bush presidency.
The declining influence of US foreign policy has been underscored by neo-cons. Such a decline can be partially reversed, (by an Obama presidency I suggest–qualitatively), but US economic decline is an inescapable factor in a longer term FP quantitative decline.
If Obama wins, FP will move away from Colin Powell’s descriptive “crazies” (and bury it forever one hopes) and that’s something to look forward to in a fast developing multipolar world. FP “realism”, based on unipolarity and an overwhelming US military capacity is weakening. How Obama manages the shift to equality/parity with the EU, China and India in the 8 years of such a presidency will be interesting.(Arguably, China’s economy could equal the US’ in that timeframe with the US slipping a few notches)
Go Obama!
I’m not sure why it matters whether or not US workers are more productive than anyone else. I’m also not sure why it matters whether the US can compete with anyone else or not. In fact, its not even clear what this means. Is it suggesting that the US is happy to have free trade only when it thinks it will not actually import anything that it can produce itself because it is so much better at producing these products? This sounds like an absolute advantage story. Even assuming the claims are right, this seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the sources of the gains from trade. It is the ability to at least partially specialise and exploit comparative advantage that is the main source of the gains from trade, not the existence of an absolute advantage. Trade is not a zero sum game. Both parties (the importer and the exporter) benefit from it. Furthermore, there is little point to exports if you do not allow imports. In a sense, exports are the price a country pays in order to be able to import. I seem to recall that Paul Krugman made similar points to these (indeed, maybe even the very same points) some time back in one of his popular economics books. However, I’m sure he made them much better than I have in this post!!!
If you reach the conclusion Obama is too right-wing then you should be interested in promoting the US Green party more. They seems to be the only non-racists interested in tackling the military-entertainment complex in its den.
The differences between the big three are not that big – they should be imho, but they won’t if genuine independents are cut out and cold shouldered. Its a similar system here. Tweedledee and dumber with only the Greens as alternative.
Obama is more right-wing than Clinton, but is being down-played in US mainstream media to an enormous extent. His health plan for example, is blatant corporate welfare.
Credit where credit is due, the US media are masters of the art of propaganda, take the Gold Medal in it. For some reason Obama is being painted as a small-l liberal lefty with a “vision”.
His anti-war record? One speech in 2002, in a state govt that was Republican dominated. He took the text off his website when he ran for US Senate in 2004, because it was out-dated. He ran for fed Senate on a promise that he would not vote for war funding bills. He voted for every single one, just like most of the other Democrats, and politically distanced himself from the publicly vocal anti-war Democrat faction, like Kucinich. Whats so “different” from “old washington politics” when politicians renege on campaign promises? In 2004, he is on public record in several newspapers with an interview stating his position was “exactly the same as Bush”. He waited a full 18 months after entering the US Senate, before even mentioning the war, and then made a speech arguing against withdrawing too early. All public domain stuff, just the MSM isn’t going to pick up on it.
The Illinios chapter of the National Organisation of Women, disendorsed him for his first run for the US Senate in 2004, because he had consistently abstained or voted against (and often the ONLY Democrat to do so!) on Democrat-sponsored state legislation relating to abortion, sexual abuse of children, and gun control.
In the primaries, in some States with opens, up to 30% of his vote is coming from Republicans, on a Two-For-One deal. Republican websites openly laugh about it, in being a “Democrat-for-A-Day”, the idea is to vote for Obama in the Democrat primaries (to get rid of *her*), then in November switch back to McCain (to get rid of *him*).
Do a google on NAFTA, Obama and Canada, try to get the CTV clips if you can, (if they haven’t gone yet) and check out the credentials on his advisors, particularly the economic ones. All well-known right-wing neo-cons. Either way he is Republican-Lite, and while the multinational blocs might prefer the GOP, they have put plenty of money to the Mobama and wont lose any sleep, if they do end up with 2nd-best.
For me, its been hilarious to watch all this play out, so much like the movie “Life of Brian”, where crowds of thousands applaud, cheer and faint in epiphanies, when he sneezes.
And your mother wears army boots.
For the record if you like your politicians left-wing Obama’s voting record was the most left-wing in the senate last year of all 100 senators. Clinton was about 16th.
Fair enough, Rain, the dice are loaded, the captain lied, but would you prefer an unabashed warmonger like HRC or maybe Johnny Bomb-Bomb instead?
Three contenders remain. Perhaps Obi is just another Elmer Gantry without the roving eye, but if he gets the keys to 1600 Penn. he’ll bring his own people along with him and the lobbyists that have had their snouts in the trough for the last 16 years will be dragged away squealing. Just like the tories now under 9% Nelson, this eventuality will provide mildly amusing salon sport.
Like here, last Nov., on a Howard-Rudd either or, there really wasn’t much choice on one level, but hey, what’s happened in the last hundred days wouldn’t have occured under JWH. Evah!
It wasn’t exactly Sophie’s Choice but it was the only one we had.
Same for the Seps. The American Dream is a farce, but idol Obi offers something the other two can not.
Describe that level for me, EC, so I can try’n get a bead on where your brain is at. (Please.)
“Obama is too right-wing/not right wing enuf/some other wing…”
Here’s a tiny story that it might be a little germane to tell, as the US elections roll forward, just to remind folks of something that they already know, but which we all tend to forget at one time or another.
Back around 1989-90, when New York City had *really* hit rock bottom (good heavens, that time seems like a whole other planet now, almost ten years of my life lived in a bad dream!), I used to work late at night in a rather, um, questionable part of town. Since I often finished work around 3 or 4 in the morning, I used to take a livery cab back home, rather than deal with the subways. The drivers at that hour were usually immigrant guys mostly from Jamaica and West Africa. The smell of incense in the cabs would choke a horse. We’d make dry jokes about the sound of gunshots and so forth.
One night I was talking to a driver, who was this guy from West Africa, I think maybe from Ghana, who’d only been in the US for a short while, all of it in NYC. So I asked him what he thought of the place so far. He dropped his friendly conversational tone and suddenly sounded honestly horrified. He told me that he had had NO IDEA it would be like this, and if he’d known, he never would have come; in fact, he was saving money to go back to Africa. I said, Well, why were you so surprised? Didn’t you do a bit of research before you pulled up stakes and moved to a foreign country? He said he hadn’t thought he would need to: after all, he had seen the USA on TV and in the movies his entire life, so he thought he already knew enough about the place from that.
The point being that, familiar as the US may seem from the news and media and so forth, a foreign country really does remain a foreign country. Even things that seem the same are actually different. I’ve been reading people here over the last two weeks or so making all sorts of confident pronouncements about the nature of US politics, and I have to say I often don’t know what planet they’re talking about. Not that they’re “wrong” but that they’re talking about a vision of another country that is an Australian vision, one that an American would have a hard time trying to recognize; it’s your construction of it.
Which is not to say that people shouldn’t have opinions and talk about this stuff, it’s newsworthy after all, talk is interesting, and much of the politics can be sort of understood. And I don’t mean to claim that my own views would necessarily be more “right” than anyone else’s. Just a reminder to be a little skeptical about your own perceptions, which after all are necessarily based on your own discrete worldview, which is particular and unique, and very different from ours.
“or it’s all different…”
– Heiner Mueller, ‘Description of a Picture’
oh j_p_z, don’t be such a bloody spoil-sport, maaaaate!
We’re ALL experts here!! We are equally adept at pronouncing on the likely killer of Benazir, NAFTA, Mr Howard, Raul Castro, Shakespeare, capsicum spray, voting systems, Miss Hilton, jazz, gay bars, “Lolita”, drought, doctors and nurses. We are Renaissance persons, near enough to omniscient as makes not a whit of difference.
I thought you’d have noticed by now.
I dig your point jpz.
Every time I go to the US I leave feeling I know less about it, rather than more. Its one enormous, complex, irreducible organism.
Me, I dont even pretend to understand its politics.
In “our” defence, slightly: the projected images of the US are more homogeneous than the reality. And we are more or less forced to take some sort of position on that – since it gets rammed at us 24/7 out here.
Anyway – I was in a low ricta earthquake while in a bar in the Mission SF. I didnt even notice – thought it was 4th whiskey swoon.
The “most liberal senator” ranking is a bit of a joke. It really reflects that BHO broke from the party line less than anyone else, not least because he missed a relatively large number of key votes.
The difference in voting record between BHO and HRC is small. The main ones are that HRC voted against establishing a Senate Office of public integrity; for requiring temporary workers to return to their home countries every two years; for a ’sense of Senate’ declaring the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization.
It’s certainly a joke to say that Obama and Joseph Biden (#3 most Liberal) are both more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders for example.
There was a big question mark over Kevin Rudd during last years campaign. Was he really going to be a “me too” versions 2.0 of Howard? Or was he going to break all his promises and drag the country (screaming and kicking, presumably) to the Left?
It seems to me that Obama presents a very similar enigma for US voters. And I think the results might be much the same: even if he does not adopt anything that could seriously be called a “leftist” agenda, it will still be such a breath of fresh air that it will be loudly hailed by one and all as a revolution.
I too take japerz’ point.
Most cultures are more complex and have more integrity than there appears from the outside.
Sometimes money and power fuel the illusion that this complexity and integrity don’t count for much.
Challenging this illusion is what drove much of the action in Graham Greene’s The Quiet American.
Posters @ [30] and [33] graciously concede j_p_z’s point, about our ignorance of US politics. That certainly includes my ignorance. I propose a new acronym:
WTFWIK?B
[translation: "What the Hell would I know? but"] as a preface to one’s comments on a far-off or complex or generally misunderstood area. Modesty becomes us. Some of us have Much to be Modest about.
IMHO, “WTFWIK?B” could be a useful addition to the bloglexicon, along with “IMHO”.
You considered it first on LP, folks.
Catchy, Ambo!
And how about
“ID’TRBWIFPE,BWNSOP”
[I didn't really believe what I first posted either, but will now stoush on principle]
User friendly version SOP: stoush on principle. eg “this has degenerated into a SOP, people”
j_p_z OK, so as you live in the US, would you mind considering these questions, which I preface by saying WTFWIK?B:
1. should we rather be thinking about how a McCain Presidency might affect Australia?
2. is HC in your opinion hampered by the BillC connection? [I have in mind this possibility: she’s not a ‘new woman’ candidate in the sense that she arrived in the public eye as the-candidate’s-wife-denying-the-Gennifer-Flowers-claims during 1992, then had a bit of a try at Health System Reform as Mrs Clinton = First Lady {how did that go, BTW?}, then found herself railing against a Republican Conspiracy when that nice Miss Lewinsky had told Terrible Fibs, then Stood By Her Man after he had helpfully informed her they wuzz no fibs,…. a woman of intellect no doubt, but does she have the whiff of nepotism about her??
3. Is Barak big on windy “rhetoric” but thin on policy?
4. Will your forthcoming recession make all of this a tad unimportant?
seeya, cobber!
(By the way, I’d welcome a woman being elected President, I just think HC may be unelectable.)
“Stoush on Principle” eh? Sounds like a good name for a blog.
“4. Will your forthcoming recession make all of this a tad unimportant?”
“Forthcoming” recession? There’s been a de facto moral-equivalent-of-recession here for ages, it’s mighty kind of the MSM to finally notice it. You must mean the forthcoming societal and financial full-scale Total Collapse Event. Yes, I think that could potentially have a slight ripple effect on Australia.
But I wouldn’t worry too much about who the next president is. After eight more years of any particular flavor of fiasco (choose one disaster out of three), the next president of both America and Australia will be some faceless Chinese bureaucrat in the PRC’s newly-formed Department of Governing Incompetent Foreign Devils.
OK, kong hee far choy j_p_z
“Howard-Rudd either or, there really wasn’t much choice on one level
Describe that level for me, EC, so I can try’n get a bead on where your brain is at. (Please.)”
Certainly, wbb at 27, on this level. Recognise It?
“We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule, or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures, and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision. They are representatives of abstract forces who have reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past. There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident, inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.”
Hey, Japerz, pity the African cabbie didn’t have access to the vast amount of information and informed comment available on the best nooks and crannies of the www. Today we Aussies, smart-arsed and humble, can glom the goodies in the flick of a mouse, mate.
re: Paul Burns, Alaska or Hawaii the 51st state.
Lefties are so ignorant of history and even present-day facts, then presume to climb on some self-righteous throne and pontificate about politics and policy. Someone so ill-informed, intellectually incurious and apparently illiterate and ignorant of daily news that they don’t know the U.S. has 50 states shouldn’t be writing or speaking at all, because they merely prove they are the fool everyone thinks they are.
And you say you are used to dealing with a US with 13 states: in the US, we learn about the American Revolution, the ratification of the Constitution and the addition of states to the original 13 colonies in about 3rd grade (7-8 years old). What did you do, leave school before they got to the 1800’s history? There was a US civil war in there, and the 1900’s will provide even more interesting titbits about US history that might inform some of your half-baked shibboleths and lefty slogans about the US-Australian alliance.
You might particularly be interested in the 1940’s, America and Australia’s tight bond was forged then. Luckily, most Aussies and their leaders don’t seem to have forgotten that bond and the common cause Americans share with Australia.
As ignorant and unread as you seem to be, no wonder you question the alliance and cooperation. Your grasp of geopolitics is as weak as your arguments against the War for Iraqi Freedom. The war is an absolute good; messy, mistake-laden, miserable, unfortunate and deadly for many innocent people, but necessary none the less.
Iraqis are certainly glad we threw out Saddam and that we stayed to help them establish a democracy. It took the US over 100 years to sort out major differences and millions dead and maimed before our Civil War finally sorted those out and we established the United States as it stands today, a beacon of freedom, flawed, unfair and wrong on occasion, but you and the rest of the world are lucky that if there must be a super-power its a benign and good-hearted and loyal one that is based on freedom and bent on spreading it throughout the world. You owe us more than a little for your own freedom, or you might be writing the above post in Japanese, mate
Well actually four score and seven years by Abraham Lincoln’s counting in 1863, so add another two years for the end of the Civil War and perhaps one more year for the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment- so that’s ninety years.
Lefties are so ignorant of history and even present-day facts, then presume to climb on some self-righteous throne and pontificate about politics and policy. Someone so ill-informed, intellectually incurious and apparently illiterate and ignorant of daily news that they don’t know the U.S. has 50 states shouldn’t be writing or speaking at all, because they merely prove they are the fool everyone thinks they are.
Perhaps. I say anyone who doesn’t understand this internationally recognized metaphor should shut the fuck up.
Saigon, Thanks. Docweasel, I don’t respond to personal abuse, ever. Just wasn’t thinking that day. Now let me put you straight about a few things on the origins of the US-Australian Alliance. In 1936 in a dispute over the Smoot-Hawley tariffs,Australia and the Us nearly severed diplomatic relations. In 1942, when our PM Curtin received faulty intelligence of a supposed Japanese attack on NW Australia MacArthur refused to supply American troops to defend the NW. The threat in fact, wasn’t there, but neither man knew that in the few days it seemed possible. The Americans did not establish themnselves here to save Oz from the Japanese. The Japanese never intended to invade Australia, and the Americans, Curtin and our General Blamey were all very well aware of that because the US had broken Japanese codes, including that little piece of info about not intending to invade here, which I’ve actually read in translation.I really can’t be bothered going on, but I could relate much more info from the Australian Archives and our National Library and War Memorial demonstrating that when it came to protecting the Australian mainland from Jap invasion, the American “alliance” {There was no signed alliance at the time actually] wasn’t worth two bob (20c).And our politicians knew it. They just didn’t tell us.
docweasel, play the argument and not the person, please.
what Would Obama Mean To Oz?
About the same as Rudd means to Oz, presumably.
And if you don’t know what that means,you are not paying attention.
No I’m not familiar with that, EC. But staying on that level, then which Australian leader is any different to any other?
Surely even an anarchist prefers and recognizes the lesser evil.
Lateline had a pretty sharp sounding US pundit on, and at the end of interview Tony Jones brought up possibility of Obama being assassinated should he be elected.
US pundit treated the suggestion as actually being a very real possibility, almost likely ( there are lots of guns, and lots of racists in america …), . Apparently is why Colon Powell never ran.
Tony Jones observed that last person to challenge the status quo, with much popular support, like Obama, was Bobby Kennedy, and look what happened to him. US pundit says: yep, at the california primary.
Gave me a chill.
I dunno about what an Obama presidency means for Oz, but the US tearing itself apart to that extent can’t be good for anyone.
Heh. And look what happened to Colin Powell. At least if he had run and been assassinated, he would have died with his reputation intact.
Of course his wife and kids might see that differently…
wbb at 47:
["rulers by accident, inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push".
No I’m not familiar with that, EC. But staying on that level, then which Australian leader is any different to any other?
Surely even an anarchist prefers and recognizes the lesser evil.]
wbb, the quote is from William S. Burroughs’ novel “Interzone”. From your sobriquet and avatar I assumed you’d have picked up on it easily. WB also recorded those words with John Cale on WB’s album “Dead City Radio”. You seem to be going in circles William Burroughs’ Babboon (wbb). That’s precisely “the level” I was referring to at 39 when you politely inquired
“Describe that level for me, EC, so I can try’n get a bead on where your brain is at. Please”
And wbb, I’m not an anarchist. I vote and have been on the roll for years, have an understanding of realpolitik and preferred Rudd to JWH, and of the 3 remaining candidates in the “land of the free”, prefer Obi to Clinton to Johnny Bomb-Bomb.
Sincerely trust that your brain hurts no more, wbb:)
danny at [48] I saw that and it gave me a chill too: I thought the interviewee meant that Obama could be assasinated any time from now to 2012 (including before even being confirmed as the Democrat candidate, as the reference to Bobby Kennedy’s campaign for nominatuon suggested). Does the US Secret Service protect these runners in primaries? Or do they wait until a chap becomes POTUS or VP? Are local police good enough to protect the candidates?